I thought you guys were "winning"...?

abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
You can lead a liberal to water but cannot make him think

He cited sources that you are currently ignoring. Citing more sources that you will ignore is as pointless as having to try to have a serious discussion with uncle buck....
Click to expand...
First off, don't ever call me a liberal, I find it extremely offensive and while I'm certainly an ass hole, I generally only call people stupid or liar or some variation of those. Don't call me liberal. Liberalism is a form of capitalism.

Secondly, no, he didn't link anything worthwhile. I have linked peer reviewed studies and position statements from major scientific institutions. I also linked a Nasa study.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
jahbrudda said:
More Than 1000 International Scientists
Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming
Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk Fading
“Consensus” in 2008 & 2009 & 2010
http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf
Click to expand...
jahbrudda said:
View attachment 3259690
Click to expand...
jahbrudda said:
17 Scientists From 11 Countries: Research Confirms That IPCC Climate Models' Flood Predictions Are Spectacular Failure.
Another IPCC climate model prediction fails the ultimate test...it's confirmed that the computer simulations of increased flooding did not materialize...and human CO2 emissions do not cause more and bigger floods.....
Click to expand...
OK, stop spamming, give me a moment to look at your citations. You have had plenty of time to review my citations, even if you refused to.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
OK, stop spamming, give me a moment to look at your citations. You have had plenty of time to review my citations, even if you refused to.
Click to expand...
lol, just wait til you find what I found about the sources... Dude doesn't ever dig, he see's the headline "GLOBAL WARMING IS BULLSHIT!" then posts it...
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
The chart on post #431 is garbage. It is a denier's interpretation of IPCC data yet it claims IPCC as source. To add insult to injury, the black line is still within predictions and as I told Sketchy Etchy when he linked it, the line representing 2006 denotes actual predictions from retrospect. It is therefore worthless.
One down, three to go.



The list on page #426 is a communication from the senate minority report. If you don't know who the senate minority was during this period, I'll tell you, it was the Republican party. The position is a dispute of consensus and not in any way does it represent a scientific conclusion. This list was compiled by James Inhofe (R-OK) with out consent of the scientists themselves. He has received nearly a million dollars in donations from the coal industry. In an attempt to divorce the science from politics, let's take a closer look at the content. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002211/
The list was compiled by Inhofe’s staff without prior consent by the scientists themselves; Parkinson says some have requested to be taken off the list. Moreover, only 15% of the scientists listed had published in the refereed literature on subjects related to climate science. Precisely how these individuals line up with respect to their own political views and funding isn’t disclosed in the report and therefore can’t be easily discerned.
Click to expand...
Pretty damning stuff. The Senate Minority report is garbage. Two down, two to go.



A chart entitled "NASA Data: Global Warming Still on “Pause,” Sea Ice Hit Record". All this means is that some newspaper took NASA research and added the title to spin it into denial. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, record sea ice means gains in a single year. We're talking about 2012. The chart actually has no relation what so ever to the sea ice gains but you are quite stupid so what can we expect? Nonetheless, I'll explicate your nonargument. Measuring surface sea ice gains from record lows has been repeatedly demonstrated as a useless measurement. It doesn't represent record low tempuratures as the surface need only reach freezing in order to freeze. Furthermore, it also indicates record melts in the previous season. When one looks at total ice volume loss, it is clear that the ice caps have shrunk drastically. Furthermore, this summer saw record melts in a devastating way. Damning yet again. Three down and 1 to go.



Here we finally have you succeeding by accident. By that I mean, your link was garbage except for the fact that it actually contains a citation. So let's take a look at that. Kundzewicz et al. (2013)

ABSTRACT
Flood risk assessment is a pre‐requisite to flood risk management, required by the
Floods Directive of the European Union. However, even evaluation of flood risk changes in past‐
to‐present is problematic. No ubiquitous, general, and significant changes in observed flood
flows can be detected. Flood risk projections for the future are far more uncertain. A climatic
track is likely but there is also a strong natural variability and, at times, non‐climatic factors
dominate. Clearly, climate models cannot reliably reconstruct past precipitation and massive
bias reduction is necessary that does not build confidence. Projections are not only scenario‐
specific, but also largely model‐specific.Robust projections are sought across models and
scenarios, but often in vain. Hence, the question “adapt to what?” comes about. For the time
being, precautionary principle is of use. Even if science cannot deliver a crisp number, safety
margin approach lends itself well and adaptation is driven by the willingness to be on the safe
side. There is hope in reducing uncertainty by advancing rigorous attribution, via model‐based
interpretation of past extreme flood events.
Click to expand...
^^I don't see anything about disputing CO2 as the cause for climate change in there.^^


Verdict, you managed to cite one actual scientific study, but because you relied on conservative media outlets, you were fooled into thinking that you were citing actual science. The one scientific study you accientally shared, turned out to not support your argument. You have literally NOTHING!
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
jahbrudda said:
We know, all sources are BS sources unless they support your narrative? :lol:
Click to expand...
More Than 1000 International Scientists
Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming
Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk Fading
“Consensus” in 2008 & 2009 & 2010
http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

Hmm.. "climate depot" huh.. wonder what that is, lets investigate...

Looks like it was founded by a guy named Marc Morano.. who's he?

Born in Virginia, has a BS in political science, a former employee of Jim Inhofe, then after that began working for Rush Limbaugh from 92-96... hmm.. He was one of the people to fabricate 'climategate', lets see what else we can find..

"The list presented by Morano in his minority 2007-2008 report has been criticized by Joseph J. Romm for including a significant number of people who are not sufficiently well-qualified to assess climate science, such as author Ray Kurzweil and a number of television meteorologists, such as Steve Baskerville, as well as scientists whose expertise is in geomagnetism. In 2009, Joseph Romm wrote that Morano was "unquotable and uncitable," adding "Besides his penchant for smear, he just makes stuff up..."

At the end of 2012 Media Matters for America named Morano the "Climate Change Misinformer of the Year.""

Lol, so as if all of that wasn't bad enough...

I wonder where the dude gets his funding...

"Climate Depot.com run by Morano, is funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, known for his financial support of conservative public policy organizations. CFACT's tax filings list Morano as the most highly paid member of the organisation.

Hmm, who's Richard Mellon Scaife?... lets find out, together ;)

"Richard Mellon Scaife (July 3, 1932 – July 4, 2014) was an American billionaire, a principal heir to the Mellon banking, oil, and aluminum fortune, and the owner and publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. In 2005, Scaife was number 238 on the Forbes 400, with a personal fortune of $1.2 billion. By 2013, Scaife had dropped to number 371 on the listing, with a personal fortune of $1.4 billion.

Scaife was also known for his financial support of conservative public policy organizations over the past four decades. He provided support for conservative and libertarian causes in the United States, mostly through the private, nonprofit foundations he controlled: the Sarah Scaife Foundation, Carthage Foundation, and Allegheny Foundation, and until 2001, the Scaife Family Foundation, now controlled by his daughter Jennie and son David."


LOL

So in conclusion, you cited a "study" conducted by a guy with a BS in political science who interviewed people with no scientific backgrounds, that was funded by a billionaire tied to the oil industry.



Here's a video of the douchnozzle trying to go up against Bill Nye and getting totally fucking owned;

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top